2003 PLP 499 (MLD)

2. Haroon Gul was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased, under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. vide trial Court judgment dated 10‑2‑2001.

3. The case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Afzal complainant P.W.1. According to complainant on 3‑11‑1998 at about 6/7‑00 p.m. a dispute arose between Haroon Gul accused and Muhammad Amjad deceased on throwing of garbage in front of shop of Muhammad Amjad. Abuses were exchanged between the parties but the matter was patched up by the respectables of the locality. On 4‑11‑1998 at about 11‑00 a.m., the complainant alongwith his nephew Areesh Amjad and Tahir Mehmood were standing near the shop of Muhammad Amjad. In the meantime Haroon Gul, accused armed with .30 bore pistol came there and by raising Lalkara fired a shot which hit Muhammad Amjad on his chest, stomach and right flank who fell down. The accused escaped from the spot after the incident. Muhammad Amjad was removed to the hospital but he died in the Civil Hospital, Sialkot.

4. In the subsequent investigation conducted, Haroon Gul accused u as found guilty and was challaned to Court. Charge under section 302, P.P.C. was framed against the accused.

5. Prosecution examined Muhammad Afzal complainant P. W.1, Areesh Amjad P.W.2, Muhammad Safdar P.W.3, Hameed Hussain, A.S.‑I. P.W.4, Bashir Hussain P.W.5, Tariq Mehmood P.W.6, Dr. Syed Tahir Zafar P.W.7, Muhammad Safdar, H/C P.W.8, Khalid Baig, S.‑I. P.W.9, Shaukat, Constable P.W.10, Muhammad Latif P.W.11, Masud Ahmad, Draftsman P. W.12, Malik Nadeem, Investigating Officer of the case as C. W.1.

6. The ocular account in this case was furnished by Muhammad Afzal complainant P. W.1 and Areesh Amjad P.W.2.

7. The accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. professed his innocence and pleaded false implication in the case.

8. Trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted Haroon Gul accused as stated above.

9. The convict appealed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that offence committed by the convict falls within the purview of section 302(c), P.P.C. and he could not have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. as was done by the trial Court and sentence awarded to him was on the higher side. It was submitted that the deceased had committed blasphemy in respect of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) which had provoked the appellant to such an extent that he had to fire at him and in the facts and circumstances of the case, was liable to awarding of very light punishment. Prayer was made for reducing the sentence of appellant to that already undergone by him. The State, however, supported the impugned judgment.

11. The incident in this case has been admitted. Therefore, certain aspects of the. prosecution case are not required to be scrutinized by this court. Though the prosecution alleged that dispute between the parties erupted on account of disposal of garbage yet the accused, took the stand that incident had taken place on account of disrespectful utterance made by deceased with regard to the life of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and that he was provoked and then the offence was committed by him in that background. The motive, as concluded by the trial Court could not be established by the prosecution. There was no dispute between the parties. Previous enmity did not exist between the parties either. Therefore, the background in which the occurrence took place appears to be somewhat different than the one claimed by the prosecution. The appellant hats also taken a specific stand but his stand is not supported by any other witness. No body had come forward to testify in support of the defence plea that the deceased had made any disrespectful utterance qua the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.). The Imam of the village anal other persons who were approached by the appellant had also not conic forward to support his case. The deceased is alleged to leave uttered the words about two weeks prior to the actual incident and it is claim of the appellant that deceased was called upon to offer Tauba and on his failure to repent; appellant was provoked and he then fired at him. This stand of the appellant shows drat when any disrespectful words were spoken by the deceased, the accused was not provoked nor he had acted under any impulse at that moment. He waited for about two weeks and then had reacted. The accused in the circumstances cannot claim that offence was committed by him on account of sudden and grave provocation. The trial Court had also concluded that it was not a case of sudden provocation. This view appears to be correct view of the record. The accused had taken life of a person on notional thinking and he was rightly convicted for offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. The sentence awarded to him under the tarts and circumstances of the case appears to be appropriate sentence. A lenient view in the matter of sentence was taken by the trial Court on account of the fact that motive could not be established by the prosecution. No further relief in the matter of sentence can be given to the appellant. Defence of the appellant appears to be an afterthought and was not supported by evidence or any other circumstance.

12. The appeal fails and is dismissed. H.B.T./H‑129/L Appeal dismissed.